By Don Hazen, AlterNet February 19, 2004
"Are you optimistic?"
Someone asks me that question virtually every day. Or sometimes, "How do you think things are going?" – as my expat friend David put it hopefully, shortly after getting off a plane from Bali. Even without any context, I know immediately what the questioner is referring to.
I can't remember the last time conversational shorthand carried such a clear and instant meaning. When I answer, "Yes, I am optimistic," it's another small vote for the belief that something a lot of people care very much about – regime change in 2004 – may be possible.
People don't ask me these questions because I have insider information or because I'm a sage. But due to my work in independent media and progressive politics, I pay more attention to and have more information about the subject than most of the questioners. If I am optimistic, they figure, it probably means that others like me are also feeling that way. And so, feeling more hopeful and upbeat, they carry the answer away and share it with friends, family, colleagues and acquaintances. The spreading of optimism is contagious.
This exercise can collectively be called "team confidence building." The team is made up of untold millions who want George W. Bush out of the White House so badly they can taste it. They are disgusted and appalled. Then there are people like my friend David, who has grown weary of trying to explain to incredulous people abroad, who have such affection for the United States, that George Bush doesn't really represent most Americans.
Out of Whack
Right now, many Americans feel that something is fundamentally out of whack in the country. There is a "disturbance in the field," that is gnawing at the collective psyche and making people a little crazy with frustration. They have an overwhelming desire to do something concrete to address their anxiety and anger – what, they're not sure. Politics is often the art of changing other people's minds, which is not, for the most part, what people like to do in America. We tend to talk to people who think the way we do.
Mind you, the people asking me questions are not naïve about politics. But most always thought, to some extent, that there were checks and balances operating in the system: a feisty media to keep people honest, like during Watergate; a Supreme Court that acted with some collective wisdom, like when it defended women's right to chose; a world event like the falling of the Berlin Wall, that would undermine the excesses of the Cold War.
It used to be that the American public seemed to prefer divided government; if one party controlled the White House, the other major party controlled at least one of the houses of Congress. But as Robert Kuttner underscores in his article, "Stranglehold: The Right-wing Push for a One Party State" in the February American Prospect, not only are Democrats in the minority everywhere, but under House Majority Leader Tom Delay's parliamentary dictatorship we are on the verge of a "near-permanent, partisan lock on government" that would guarantee the "completion of the Bush radical-right project: the dismantling of social investment, regulation, progressive taxation, separation of church and state, racial justice and trade unionism."
There are no realistic checks and balances left; except for electing a Democrat president.
In the face of this grim reality, simply registering a feeling of hope with our peers and being validated is a very concrete step, even if it is preliminary. Keep in mind that just a few months ago the conventional wisdom was that Bush – primarily because of 9/11 and the level of support initially drummed up for the war on Iraq – was virtually unbeatable. Now polls show him not only beatable, but in some cases with John Kerry winning by as many as 8 points. And a majority of those polled express a negative opinion about Bush's conduct of the Iraq war.
Should We Hope?
Why are so many people feeling more optimistic? Are they being realistic? There are a number of reasons for the growing surge of hope: The war in Iraq is going poorly; the President's National Guard record is being scrutinized and ridiculed; the media is sinking its teeth into more substantive issues; and first one, and now perhaps two, Democratic candidates have emerged with the broad sense of electability.
As the New York Times succinctly puts it: "Republicans had expected Mr. Bush to enter the general election campaign benefiting from his leadership in the war on terrorism. But the continued deaths of American troops in Iraq, the apparent absence of stockpiles of banned weapons there and the questions about Mr. Bush's service in the Guard in the Vietnam era have all eaten into his support, left the White House scrambling and emboldened Democrats."
Furthermore, the President's performance in the State of the Union address got universally poor reviews for its overbearing partisanship and lack of majesty. Basically, not very presidential. More recently on "Meet the Press," where he appeared to counter bad news on several fronts, he was repetitive and evasive, suggesting perhaps that the President may not be as durable the second time around.
The job situation also falls into Bush's bad-news category. Despite heavy pump priming, the economy is failing to produce new jobs and the growing trend toward "outsourcing" – American corporations shipping white-collar jobs overseas – is emerging as a major issue in which Bush could lose some of his white male "Reagan Democrat" support.
Another anti-Bush confidence builder is the fact that the establishment media is asserting itself in ways it failed to during Campaign 2000.
In the March issue of The American Prospect, Michael Tomasky and Eric Alterman suggest that the media is rousing itself from its long torpor. In the first week of February, they write, "... the media started raising new questions about the justification for the Iraq War; broke an important story about the administration knowing last fall that the Medicare bill would cost $134 billion more than it let on ... broke another probe of alleged bribes at Dick Cheney's Halliburton; and finally, led by the Boston Globe's Walter Robinson, started to take a ... look into George W. Bush's disputed National Guard record."
Absent without Leave
The National Guard issue has become the biggest media buzz of the moment, instigating a relentless search for anyone who may have spotted George Bush during his time with the Alabama National Guard. This loopy tale of dental appointments and $1,000 rewards for Bush sightings is being built into a master narrative by the late-night talk show hosts, and may have the same consequences as the silly stories that were pinned to Al Gore in 2000. (He invented the Internet; he was the source for the book, "Love Story.")
Other media are joining the AWOL fray. Even CNN has noted that Bush was called the "Texas Soufflé" by staffers who worked with him on the Alabama political campaign back in 1972: "He looked good on the outside but was full of hot air." The former staffers report that "Bush used to breeze into the campaign office around noon each day, regale everyone with stories of his big political connections for a couple of hours, then leave."
The Kerry Quotient
Perhaps the biggest confidence builder among the anti-Bush troops has been John Kerry's steady march to the Democratic presidential nomination, with a majority of voters choosing Mr. Electability in primary after primary. John Edwards' solid second-place finish in Wisconsin suggests that his message, too, is resonating. In any case, a healthy contest between them over the next weeks benefits the Dems, keeping both candidates at the center of the news cycle and preventing the Bush campaign from training its guns at any individual Democratic candidate.
How did Kerry get the mantle of electability after being far behind Dean in the polls in New Hampshire and an also-ran in Iowa? This point will be heavily debated. Many critics insist that the corporate media decided that Kerry was their man, while pummeling Howard Dean into smithereens. The mistreatment Dean received from the media made many voters worry that he would be unelectable – and whether or not they agreed, they obviously took it into account when they cast their ballots.
An irony, and source of ambivalence to some, is the fact the Kerry is quite acceptable to the media establishment – part of the reason he is headed to the nomination and part of the reason he may well win the White House in November. The news that Kerry has been close to the media moguls (his brother is a lawyer for the cable TV industry) and heavily funded by them (even the rightwing Fox's COO, Peter Chernin, is contributing handsomely to his campaign) is oddly reassuring when regime change is the primary goal. This fact of media acceptability and corporate media support won't make media reformers happy, but it's good news for women, gays, parents, union members, poor people, civil libertarians and on and on.
Regime change enthusiasts regard Kerry as a strong enough candidate; he is generally in sync with a large number of Democratic voters on most issues, he has gobs of experience, and he has a presidential bearing.
And of course, he is a war hero.
The voters may have been prescient in picking Kerry, because every day that the hunt for a Bush National Guard sighting intensifies, John Kerry's medals and heroism in Vietnam shine more brightly. If Edwards catches fire, some of these factors change, but nobody's claiming that the Bush people would be happy to see the attractive, articulate moderate with a social conscience at the top of the ticket, or in second place, which is increasingly likely.
ABBA's Chances
The ascension of Kerry signifies that there are clear splits in the establishment that go beyond the normally liberal sectors, such as Hollywood and technology. The parts of the corporate sector making the big bucks on Iraq and heavy military spending (Halliburton, Bechtel, defense contractors, big oil and gas interests) will be die-hard Bushies. That is where their bread is buttered.
But for much of corporate America, there's more to life than big tax cuts. There are many blends of capitalism, and the ideology-driven White House brand with reckless spending, out-of-whack priorities, rampant environmental degradation, preemptive war and gigantic deficits does not sit well with many smart, rich, powerful people in America. Just read some of the editorials and review the coverage in Conde Nast 's Vanity Fair – an establishment icon – and you get a hint of the contempt percolating at the higher levels of society.
No one is saying the election is a lock for the Democrats. A lot can happen between now and November, and no doubt will. Dick Cheney may be dumped for Rudy Giuliani or even Condoleezza Rice; Osama bin Laden may be plucked from a cave or evidence of his death discovered. There could even be some kind of domestic terrorist attack.
A few months ago, any of these events would have sent shudders up the spine of regime change adherents, but today, there is a sense that even major obstacles can be handled. Slowly and steadily the Anybody But Bush Again team is growing in size and confidence, crossing lines of class and race, and potentially setting the stage for a restoration of balance to the American system of democracy.
Don Hazen is the executive editor of AlterNet, currently on leave.
Mitayo Potosi
_________________________________________________________________
Protect your PC - get McAfee.com VirusScan Online http://clinic.mcafee.com/clinic/ibuy/campaign.asp?cid=3963
-------------------------------------------- This service is hosted on the Infocom network http://www.infocom.co.ug
